I like / don't mind the use of the term "subject", I think it's
sufficiently broad.
Tim.h.
On Tue., 27 Jun. 2017, 2:04 am Dave Longley, <dlongley@digitalbazaar.com>
wrote:
> On 06/25/2017 01:33 PM, Steven Rowat wrote:
> > On 2017-06-25 2:37 AM, David Chadwick wrote:
> >> 6. If the presenter is not the subject then the inspector needs to
> >> verify that the presenter is authorised to present the claim. This
> >> can be done in a variety of ways e.g. a pre-established trust
> >> relationship between the inspector and presenter; a VC delegating
> >> authority from the subject to the presenter; a recognised procedure
> >> for certain classes of subject and presenter; etc.
> >
> > Am I right that:
> >
> > a) this is where the 'split' in Role B (in the poll) resides;
> > (Presenter/subject or Claimant/Subject, etc.) ?
> >
> > b) pseudo-anonymity would likely reside in: "a recognised procedure
> > for certain classes of subject and presenter" ?
> >
> > With reference to a), the split roles in B, it seems that if, for
> > example, the poll were to choose "Subject" as the word for Role B,
> > then "Presenter" or "Claimant" could be added underneath in the code.
> > But if "Claimant" or "Presenter" is chosen for role B, then it seems
> > more problematic, or at least quite different.
> >
> > All those words are still available in the playground listing today,
> > Sunday:
> >
> >
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NWdpFxbERXZodvbJP_GgGZhkGI54zWmqTuFz-CR2hps/edit
> >
> >
> >
> > Specifically, I mean that people are adding words as options for Role
> > B that are actually both sides of the split. Shouldn't we just be
> > choosing one side of the split, and know which side that is, in order
> > to get the label for that side of the split correct?
> >
> > It appears to me that the way it's set up now might force the
> > technology solution to be different dependent on what word is chosen
> > in the poll, and I don't think that's the purpose of the poll, though
> > I could be wrong.
> >
> > And this could lead extra work later, disentangling and possibly
> > re-naming.
>
> I think most (if not all?) people have agreed on the "Subject" side of
> the split. So what is really being chosen is the other side -- but, as
> I've argued, there's some conflation of what that role actually does ...
> because it seems, at least to me, to be different in different use
> cases. This is the main source of tangling IMO.
>
>
> --
> Dave Longley
> CTO
> Digital Bazaar, Inc.
> http://digitalbazaar.com
>
>